• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Hollywood's creativity problem and a (ranty) stroll through endless remakes...


log in or register to remove this ad

It would look .... awesome.

(It would be roughly separated into the following categories)

Cage 101- Introduction to Awesome.
A course concentrating on "popular" Cage movies, starting with his action output in the 90s and continuing on to the National Treasure series, with some occasional pieces pulled from his lengthy popular career such as City of Angels and Moonstruck,

Cage 201- Nic Cage is Bob Denver on Acid Playing the Accordion.
A further examination of Nic Cage as auteur, examining his numerous critcally acclaimed method roles, from the 80s (Vampire's Kiss) to the 90s (Leaving Las Vegas) to the '00s (Adaptation) to now (Mandy, Pig).

Cage 301- We Released Ourselves On Our Own Recognizance.
Next, we look at the many films that Nic Cage has graced us with that we love- from Raising Arizona to Lord of War to The Weather Man.

Cage 401- MAXIMUM CAGE.
Finally, we look at the films that define a man, a generation .... a CIVILIZATION. Advanced studies and a seminar level course. Films such as The Wicker Man, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Drive Angry, Captain Corelli's Mandolin, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, Face/Off, and Deadfall.

Graduate Studies in Paychecks and Cameos
Whether it's "Hey, is that Nicolas Coppola?" (Fast Times at Ridgemont High?) or "Did you really need that paycheck that bad?" (Left Behind) some graduate-level studies will complete the study of the GREATEST ARTIST OF OUR, OR ANY generation.
I'm pretty sure The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent started life as a graduate thesis in a Cage Studies program.
 

I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors.

You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.
I mean, trying to sell people in 1987 on a "next generation" of Star Trek without Kirk, Spock, and McCoy was hard enough even giving the ship the same name, basically everyone would prefer a Ghostbusters movie with Bill Murray than one without, and of the three non-animated Transformers movies I've attempted to watch the Bumblebee spinoff was the only one I didn't regret wasting my time on. Star Wars became a dynastic saga from the moment Luke's parentage was revealed (given the veneer of Campbellian monomyth Lucas was going for, and that it set up Anakin's journey as the probable narrative for any prequels that might someday get made to complete this oddly numbered series), and I would further argue that it is the panoply of Star Wars media without Skywalkers following less directly related plots that marks any that do have Skywalkers as part of the "main narrative" of the franchise. The issue with the Fantastic Beasts movies, it seems to me, is not shoehorning in Dumbledore per se, but rather that Rawling generally seems to have lost interest in the characters she established in the first of those movies, and in anything charming or whimsical, and just wants to make Wizarding World political thrillers which nobody else wants.

Which is not to say that I don't agree with the basic premise that people doing revivals, remakes, and sequels often don't understand what really made the things work. I'd just add that some of the not-as-vital-as-they-seem things you point to have legitimate value in drawing audiences and convincing them that this is an integral sequel or whatever to bother seeing, that going back to the roots of why the original thing worked is fraught with perils because fans views of what the franchise should be have ossified over the course of time while their actual tastes and the tastes of the public at large may have shifted, and that sometimes the best thing is just to do something new with a franchise and throwing in Bill Murray or whatever may be the thing that gives you cover to do that, or that tacking on Bumblebee may be what secures funding and justifies Transformers branding for a perfectly fine, fundamentally unrelated movie about a girl and her space robot.

None of that, is of course, a defense of the Fantastic Beasts sequels, which are just the most fundamentally misguided and baffling thing I've seen the original creator of a major franchise do with it. I watch one of those and leave it feeling a little bad about having ever complained about any Star Wars movie.
 

Hollywood stopped making medium sized movies and focused on Blockbusters of varying sizes. Because of the high costs Hollywood is reluctant to take risks, even with ideas from proven successful creators like Oliver Stone, so they tap into remakes or failing that option, successful IPs they already own the rights too.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Hollywood stopped making medium sized movies and focused on Blockbusters of varying sizes. Because of the high costs Hollywood is reluctant to take risks, even with ideas from proven successful creators like Oliver Stone, so they tap into remakes or failing that option, successful IPs they already own the rights too.

This a lot of those hit 80's movies adjusted for inflation are around 50-80 million to make.
 

Hussar

Legend
The 80s were a time of many great and original movies. The 90s still had a couple that became classics.
And somewhere in the early 2000s that just stopped. Occasionally you get a good film that is impactful and memorable, but those are one-off flukes. Not part of any pattern.
Wow? Really?

The 80's were filled with massive amounts of utterly forgettable drek. The rise of the "one man army action movie" - Stallone, Swartzenegger, that crowd. The rise of the "Direct to Video" movie genre. There were no more classics in the 80's than in any other decade.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Wow? Really?

The 80's were filled with massive amounts of utterly forgettable drek. The rise of the "one man army action movie" - Stallone, Swartzenegger, that crowd. The rise of the "Direct to Video" movie genre. There were no more classics in the 80's than in any other decade.

Probably more hits across multiple genres though.

Reasonably cheap movies that made decent bank adjusted for inflation.

And those Stallone and Arnie movies were popular.

Quality wise better than now except special effects. Better than the 90's as well imho.
 

Hussar

Legend
Probably more hits across multiple genres though.

Reasonably cheap movies that made decent bank adjusted for inflation.

And those Stallone and Arnie movies were popular.

Quality wise better than now except special effects. Better than the 90's as well imho.

Seriously?

Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”.

Fun? Sure. I loves me some cheesy action flicks. But good? Nah.

It’s funny that people mentioned Roddenberry when talking about TNG. TNG didn’t take off until after they sidelined Roddenberry. All those classic Star Trek memories from TNG? Yeah almost none of those came when Roddenberry was at the helm. Never minding ds9.
 

Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”.

Fun? Sure. I loves me some cheesy action flicks. But good? Nah.
It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Seriously?

Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”.

Fun? Sure. I loves me some cheesy action flicks. But good? Nah.

It’s funny that people mentioned Roddenberry when talking about TNG. TNG didn’t take off until after they sidelined Roddenberry. All those classic Star Trek memories from TNG? Yeah almost none of those came when Roddenberry was at the helm. Never minding ds9.

Not a trekkie and I think TNG is kinda meh and DS9 is best trek.

It's not just 80's action flicks it's the comedies, fantasy, things like goonies etc.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top